It has been brought, volubly, to my attention that inquiring minds want to know why it is that officers carry swords and other archaic weapons.

I considered ignoring their pleas. Because, y'know, I'm a bitch like that. But not that much of a bitch, apparently. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book from whence the information springs, so you'll just have to hear it in my words.

It comes from the shift from small armed groups to larger ones. In the former, 'officers' or group leaders were expected to "lead from the front". They were in the thick of it. When armed forces get larger, troop movement and grander planning become the role of the officers, and they're no longer involved in battle. However, they are battle-leaders still, and hence they must have the capacity to do violence upon the enemy, at least in theory. It's more a symbol than anything, which is why the weapons tended to be symbolic. Swords (in an age of gunpowder). Batons. Single pistols, perhaps.

There are some more deep psychological reasons at play as well, but if you really want to know, find a copy of Martin van Creveld's Transformation of War.

Happy now, childer?